Policy advocates offered their ideas Wednesday on how Congress should respond to a landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance.

They spoke to Members of the House Administration Committee, who have planned multiple hearings on the decision to let corporations, labor unions, and nonprofit groups spend freely on election campaigns.

The lawyers and activists represented both sides of the debate.

Some defended the First Amendment ruling and said Congress should do nothing. Others blasted the "judicial activism" and asked lawmakers to prevent corporate coffers from drowning out smaller voices.

Their ideas included:

Do nothing. "Corporate spending does not buy elections; it buys speech," said Steve Simpson, a lawyer with the libertarian Institute for Justice.

The court ruling makes things fair, Simpson said, noting that many of the nation's 6 million corporations are actually small businesses that are affected by government policy.

He added that his opponents' fears were "vastly overblown" and that the Supreme Court held that corporations had First Amendment rights decades ago.

George Mason Law Professor Allison Hayward agreed, noting that companies aren't political by nature.

"The mission of a for-profit corporation is to make money," Hayward said.

Follow states' leads. Nearly half of the states don't limit private spending on local elections. Few of them have amended their campaign laws to regulate how that money is spent, Hayward said.

She recommended that Congress wait to see the effects of the law and warned that unions are more likely to take advantage of the ruling than companies.

"Unions are 'political entities' in ways corporations are not," she said.

Let parties fight back. One concern is that companies could steamroll efforts by candidates with limited budgets.

Congress could lift spending limits on political parties to give them a chance to respond, suggested Robert Lenhard, a lawyer and former Federal Elections Commission chairman.

Public finance. Congress should simply require that national elections be publicly financed, said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a lawyer with the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice. The group opposes the "radical" Supreme Court ruling.

Increase disclosure. Congress must expand disclosure laws for companies and unions so citizens know who is funding what, Mary G. Wilson testified. She runs the League of Women Voters, a citizen action group.

"Waiting until after the 2010 elections is simply not a viable option," Wilson said.

Limit some corporations. Companies that take money from the government should have a limited role in election campaigns, Wilson added. The state could wield influence over private firms -- and thereby elections -- through subsidies.

"We believe it is entirely inappropriate for government to intervene in elections," she said.

Ambreen Ali writes for Congress.org.